Can Rock Music be Authentic within a Home Studio Environment?

[ronhar]

Sorry, playing real instruments usually had killer first albums because the tunes were
The best of their live act. Then the big
Money rolls in and the big time producers make the product to sell, not so authentic.

 

[ronhar]

Oops, more of the last post

Sorry, playing real instruments usually had killer first albums because the tunes were
The best of their live act. Then the big
Money rolls in and the big time producers make the product to sell, not so authentic.

 

[fat_fleet]

Aren't most of the contributors on this website "50 y/o dads" ?

Probably, I honestly don't know the demographic breakdown.. Why?

And if so, what's wrong with that?

Wait... what do you mean "wrong"? Are you sure you quoted the right post??

Can good R&R only be recorded by the young(er)?

Hey, no matter who you are, you can record all the R&R you like, and even think it's "good" if it makes you happy.

 

[Farview]

by authentic I suppose I mean a traditional rock band sound that does not make use of amp simulations, drum machines, drum software and sample replacements for example. But obviously rock and the definition of authentic traditional rock is hard to define as a genre and I know this but Authentic was the best word I could think of to define a traditional non modern rock sound. If anyone else could think of anymore words or terms that they think might be better then please do tell me

But as a listener, how would you know if Sims and samples were used? That sort of magic has been used in studios for a lot longer than people generally think. For example, led zeppelin didn't always use guitar amps to get the distorted guitar tones. Was that inauthentic? People have been adding samples to real drum performances since the 70's, that isn't anything remotely new either. It also isn't related to home recording.

 

[ShofB]

It's true for the listener that doesn't care how a song was recorded. But if those listeners knew they were being lied to, they might care. The backlash against auto tune proves that people do want real shit to an extent, and they don't know how much they're being lied to.

I'm sorry I seem to have missed something. Where is the lie? All that matters is what comes out of the speakers, all of this other is simply BS.

 

[RFR]

If what is coming out of the speakers is pleasing to the listener that's all that matters.

As far as autotune being rejected, i think that has more to do with performers being busted, as well as it not sounding like a human voice when over used.
The first time I heard it being "overused" was in a Cher song. My immediate reaction was what the fuck!!??!! Very unpleasing.....to me.

A similar thing occurred with the talk box. Frampton, Joe Walsh and others used it but it never really went mainstreem. It sounds too unatural.
How many guitarists have one on the pedalboard as a must have effect?

Speaking of lies, I wonder how fans would react if they knew some of the music they loved was done by Ghost players coming in after hours for pay but no credits.
I would guess they wouldnt really care.

As i said before, if the sounds coming out of the speakers is pleasing, you're golden.

Just better be able to pull it off live, or get crucified.

 

[onoffkey]

"Authentic"

QUOTE=Tom Minter;4331016]I am sorry that you guys are angry that I am posting a survey in this forum but I am only doing so because you are the target demographic of people that I am wanting to address and collect answers from to make my study more valid. I thought it would be better to ask all of you than to ask students[/QUOTE]

 

[onoffkey]

"Authentic" Maybe I haven't followed this thread long enough to know what is meant by authentic. Is recording in a studio on an hourly basis considered authentic? Would the Beatles created Sgt Peppers on that kind of time table? Weren't they in the studio for over 200 days? What can be done in a studio that can't be done in a home studio? How authenic were Studios when that was in vogue? I'm sure a lot of people are considering the fact that with all the samples, sound loops and digital stuff etc. how authentic is the sound? But what better way to hone your sound, develop it, refine it than listening to your own recordings. Taken to the extreme, how authentic is the "electric guitar"? I think giving everyone a recording studio at their finger tips is really going to up the game. The "studio" seemed to be for only "the chosen few" or people with big bucks. Now recording has become public domain. I love it! I love the fact that music can be recorded, produced, marketed, the whole enchilada, by all. Let the listening public decide what they want to hear, what they like, not some stuffed shirt necktie dictating what is good or not. If you think the music is not authentic enough, record your own sound, they way you do it live, leave all the "techno" behind. But now you can do it without having to shell out bucks for studio time. I thin this new digital age will bring more talent to the surface, both in musicianship and engineering. I think this opens the doors for limitless possibilities and keeps those dreams alive.

 

[Farview]

I don't think it allows more talented people to get their stuff out there as much as it allows delusional, talentless hacks to foist their garbage on the world. Because there are more people who shouldn't be making music out there than people who should, it get really hard to find the good stuff because you have to wade through all the junk.

With the old system, as flawed as it was, someone who wasn't related to a band had to believe in an act enough to be able to talk his boss into funding it. Someone other than the singer's girlfriend had to think the band was good before it had a chance of reaching the public. That was a good thing.

 

[RFR]

I don't think it allows more talented people to get their stuff out there as much as it allows delusional, talentless hacks to foist their garbage on the world. Because there are more people who shouldn't be making music out there than people who should, it get really hard to find the good stuff because you have to wade through all the junk.

With the old system, as flawed as it was, someone who wasn't related to a band had to believe in an act enough to be able to talk his boss into funding it. Someone other than the singer's girlfriend had to think the band was good before it had a chance of reaching the public. That was a good thing.

One hundred % agree with this.

I used to have a 6 room rehearsal studio in Hollywood. In its heyday it was booked solid. Noon to midnight, seven days a week.

There was only a handful of bands that were any good. 95 percent was shit.

Who the modern recording revolution is good for is the gear manufacturers. Not the music.

I think it's always been this way. 5 to 10 percent is good, the rest is crap.

 

[gecko zzed]

I don't think it allows more talented people to get their stuff out there as much as it allows delusional, talentless hacks to foist their garbage on the world. Because there are more people who shouldn't be making music out there than people who should, it get really hard to find the good stuff because you have to wade through all the junk.

With the old system, as flawed as it was, someone who wasn't related to a band had to believe in an act enough to be able to talk his boss into funding it. Someone other than the singer's girlfriend had to think the band was good before it had a chance of reaching the public. That was a good thing.

I agree with this.

There is an interesting parallel in the printing industry. When personal computers first became capable of doing desktop publishing towards the end of the 20th century, the printing industry went through a major upheaval. Many printing firms went out of business as they lost work to the desktop publishers. But the skills, knowledge and experience of printing and publishing (copy writing, graphic design, font selection, lay out, proofing and so on) of staff within the industry were not necessarily held by the those doing this stuff on their Apple mac IIs and Olivetti PCs.

The consequence was that there was a flood of poorly design, poorly prepared and poorly edited brochures, poster, pamphlets, booklets and other printed material. In other words, DTP allowed "delusional, talentless hacks to foist their garbage on the world".

The upside of this was twofold: 1 - the printing industry didn't go totally belly-up as predicted at the time, because the established firms and their experience were often called up to fix the messes that DTPers had made, and their source of expertise was recognised. 2 - not every DTPer was a talentless hack, and those who had the ability got to do something they might not otherwise have had an opportunity.

 

[Greg_L]

I'm sorry I seem to have missed something. Where is the lie? All that matters is what comes out of the speakers, all of this other is simply BS.

That is the lie. You missed a lot.

I don't think it allows more talented people to get their stuff out there as much as it allows delusional, talentless hacks to foist their garbage on the world. Because there are more people who shouldn't be making music out there than people who should, it get really hard to find the good stuff because you have to wade through all the junk.

With the old system, as flawed as it was, someone who wasn't related to a band had to believe in an act enough to be able to talk his boss into funding it. Someone other than the singer's girlfriend had to think the band was good before it had a chance of reaching the public. That was a good thing.

Gaddamn nailed it. 100% truth.

 

[miroslav]

Someone other than the singer's girlfriend had to think the band was good...

 

[Greg_L]

I don't think it allows more talented people to get their stuff out there as much as it allows delusional, talentless hacks to foist their garbage on the world. Because there are more people who shouldn't be making music out there than people who should, it get really hard to find the good stuff because you have to wade through all the junk.

With the old system, as flawed as it was, someone who wasn't related to a band had to believe in an act enough to be able to talk his boss into funding it. Someone other than the singer's girlfriend had to think the band was good before it had a chance of reaching the public. That was a good thing.

Seriously, this wins the thread.

 

[gecko zzed]

I think there are two broad schools of thought in recording: the realists and the impressionists. The aim of the realists is to capture and reproduce faithfully the performance of the musicians, i.e. real people playing real instruments in real time. In this school would be, for example, people who record orchestras.

With impressionists, the process of recording is itself regarded as an art form (contrasting with the performance being the art form). Good examples are The Beatles' "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" or Queen's "A Night at the Opera". I recall Brian May saying that he regarded recording as like starting with a blank canvas, then you start adding sound the way you would add paint to a painting.

Although when I record others, I will do their bidding, my leaning is towards recording as a creative process. I don't really care how I get a particular sound so long as I get. So I will use the arsenal of audio tools to massage, manipulate and mould sound into the form I want. My wife thinks that this is cheating. That's because she belongs firmly in the realist school.

I think both approaches are valid, and a preference for one does not invalidate the other. If anything is to be regarded as 'authentic', I expect it would need to come out of the realist school. I, personally, am not particularly interested in being 'authentic'. I like painting sonic landscapes that I enjoy listening to.

 

[Greg_L]

I think there are two broad schools of thought in recording: the realists and the impressionists. The aim of the realists is to capture and reproduce faithfully the performance of the musicians, i.e. real people playing real instruments in real time. In this school would be, for example, people who record orchestras.

With impressionists, the process of recording is itself regarded as an art form (contrasting with the performance being the art form). Good examples are The Beatles' "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" or Queen's "A Night at the Opera". I recall Brian May saying that he regarded recording as like starting with a blank canvas, then you start adding sound the way you would add paint to a painting.

Although when I record others, I will do their bidding, my leaning is towards recording as a creative process. I don't really care how I get a particular sound so long as I get. So I will use the arsenal of audio tools to massage, manipulate and mould sound into the form I want. My wife thinks that this is cheating. That's because she belongs firmly in the realist school.

I think both approaches are valid, and a preference for one does not invalidate the other. If anything is to be regarded as 'authentic', I expect it would need to come out of the realist school. I, personally, am not particularly interested in being 'authentic'. I like painting sonic landscapes that I enjoy listening to.

I don't disagree with any of that. I'd just rather do it with real people playing real instruments recorded by real mics.

 

[miroslav]

...my leaning is towards recording as a creative process. I don't really care how I get a particular sound so long as I get. So I will use the arsenal of audio tools to massage, manipulate and mould sound into the form I want. My wife thinks that this is cheating. That's because she belongs firmly in the realist school.

That is also my approach to recording.
The thing about "realist" school...is as you noted, mostly done with orchestras, jazz for the most part, and the occasional bands that want to record as though they are playing a live gig, all at once...done.

Everyone else is not doing it in that "realist" way....especially solo musicians who by the nature of their singular situation, have little choice but to "fabricate" a complete performance/mix.
It's all done piece meal, and with a lot of help from the available "tools".
IMO...embracing that situation and utilizing the tools to help you realize your vision...is pure creativity and craft, no different, better or worse than any other creative process that yields a finished product.

I know some folks like to draw very fine lines as to what's "allowed" and what's not...but I honestly don't find that level of moralizing to be in any way more productive or adding any net value to the finished product.
I mean...if you want to feel better about playing a guitar track straight through in one take, no matter how much effort or how many passes are required to get that "one" take...go for it. Enjoy yourself and the studio process that satisfies you the most...
...but there are many ways to skin the cat...and the end result is pretty much the same.

And just so we don't go back into it here...it's got nothing to do with "faking" or "cheating"...it's all done with legit, hard work in the studio and it's all real music in the end.

 

[RFR]

Its Art that manifests it on speakers rather than a canvas.

Who gives a shit what kind of brushes one uses.

Not the public. Only other bitchy artists who whine about what method is better.

 

[onoffkey]

HHMM, I realize that there is a buttload of crap you must "wade through". But, on the other hand, there are venues where the cream does rise to the top. I don't have to listen to all the crap, and I see a lot of crap on TV and all over at concerts that is just total crap. I remember long ago, when probably the largest rock station in the world , KLOS, out of Los Angeles held a "rock to riches" event. The winners of this contest was an unknown band, never played in public. They came straight from the garage into my studio. Amazing talent. Also, Alice Cooper, used to sponsor a "local licks" segment on his radio station. It was great. Yes there was a lot garbage, but there was a lot of good stuff too. He still broadcasts from the High Desert Calif. It's mostly just classic rock, but sometimes it's nice to hear some new talent. You ask anyone, a lot of great talent goes unnoticed. Sad, but it's a fact of life. How about the band Boston? Where did they play? They were an unknown talent, but cranked their album from a basement. You can look at all the mega stars, check out their stories, and whether came from jamming on a street corner, playing at a battle of the bands, or recently saw a very talented young man at an open mic session at one of the music retail stores in my area. If your stuff is good enough, someone will take notice. And that someone just might kick down some bucks and give you that jump start. If your talented, and the music sounds good, someone will notice, you'll be getting hits on facebook or whatever. When you get thousands of hits, you must be doing something right. Yes, the cream will rise to the top.

 

[Greg_L]

Who gives a shit what kind of brushes one uses.

Not the public.

That's not true. They do care...when they know. They've already turned on auto-tune. Who knows what ridiculous fakery they'll turn on next.